its how u present your arguments.
if you say:

basic is dead, sorry but nobody is using it, "any other language" is superior basic.

and the next

I like basic, "any other language" is actually not that good

and next

I would like to put this and that into basic

so its all over the place.

I propagate for a clean, stable and strong basic.
how? to always think "what makes VB6 good?" and "what makes VB6 bad?"
and try to keep the good and improve the bad.

the "bad", how to convert it to be "good", so if we want to add a feature, first we need to think:
- the good of VB6, if we include all of it, how would it look.

if we instead use: but python do it like this, or C is doing this way. that means we are just "coping" another language instead of creating one from the existing language we have.

if basic was so bad, why are we still using it?
and its not just that VB6 is bad, but that it was abandoned by many.
just see the pro in this forum that gave us: directx, wia, gdi+, cairo to name a few,
that means VB6 is able, but someone need to give us the tools.
if VB6 was bad it shouldn't be possible. but it is, 20 years after they abandoned it.
that tells us something.

I don't care about +=, but everything else that will be added "without " the thought, "how to make it basic-like" instead of just "copy". because if you just want to copy other languages, why not just go to that language.